Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Like a cornered dog, the BBC has lashed out at a growing movement of organized critics of Bush 'conspiracy theories' of 911. How credible is this offensive? BBC reporting of 911 is at the very least 'questionable', at worst, 'dishonest'. I suggest that the BBC is trying to save face, having blown almost every opportunity to report honestly with regard to the events of 911.

The BBC's coverage of Building 7 is the part that contains the whole! It's a sorry 'incredible' mess! Anyone watching the BBC report of the collapse of WTC Building 7 when the building is seen still standing behind the reporter should question BBC motives, sources, ethics, and operations. Where did the BBC get the information that a standing building had collapsed before it could have or did? Why did the BBC report as fact the collapse of a building that would not collapse for another 23 minutes? How did the BBC know?

The BBC might have known had Larry Silverstein or 'agent' tipped them off! Silverstein, the building owner, is on video tape 'confessing' that the building had been 'pulled'. That being the case, the BBC is open to charges of 'omitting' the fact that Building 7 was 'pulled'. BBC cannot have it both ways!

Perhaps the 'venerable' BBC is perversely comforted by the fact that it was not alone in reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it, in fact, collapsed. The swamis at Fox were obviously consulting the same oracle.

The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

Prior to 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. Building 7 is a threat not only to Bush's absurd cover story which defies the laws of physics, it is a threat to the 'bend over and take it' school of journalism which simply regurgitates official stories and cover its ass with an attribution. The 'news reader' in the above video states as if it were fact that Building 7 collapsed because 'it had been weakened' That's utter nonsense repeated as it was fed to him. I want to know --by whom? In fact, Building 7 would not have collapsed from the existing fires even if it had not been "intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening" the structural integrity of the building.

It was the venerable New York Times which reported that fact. Their source was Larry Silverstein the man who later admitted --on broadcast TV --that WTC 7 had, in fact, been 'pulled'.

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. ...

Since that date, the BBC has tried to paper over the incident with many ex post facto versions. Likewise, the BBC has offered up an apologia for having reported a fact: when it was still honest, the BBC had tracked down and interviewed several alleged Arab 911 hijackers after they were said to have died in the 911 attacks.

Now a cornered BBC, it's credibility on the line, blames its critics, just as the US GOP always blames the victims of its own incompetent and often criminal policies. Why is the BBC lashing out? Its very survival as a network may be at stake. My theory --for what 'theories' are worth --is that the BBC has a stake in promoting the Bush/Blair orthodoxy.

In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. [my note: Larry Silverstein is heard on video tape broadcast on TV and cable that WTC 7 was, in fact, 'pulled'! ]

The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.

As building owner Larry Silverstein had said, WTC 7 was 'pulled', raising the question: when was the building prepped for demolition? One does not merely decide to 'pull' and building to watch it happen a few hours or less later. The process of rigging a building of some 47 stories for a perfect and symmetrical, controlled demolition may take weeks. Often, the plans and engineering specifications must be examined. 911 was planned well in advance.

I have a nit to pick with 911 Blogger's title. BBC cannot 'demolish' 911 truth. They can only lie about the events and try to rewrite its own history as, in fact, BBC has tried to do with several issues. First --the fact that the BBC interviewed several of the alleged 911 hijackers at a time when the Bush administration and then Prime Minister Tony Blair were telling the world that they had perished in the attacks. The BBC story is still available with a change that the BBC has tried to gloss over so:

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

Here's my note to Steve: first of all, your headline itself pure propaganda, intended to imply that critics of Bush/Blair have posited some kind of 'conspiracy' about 911. Some of the them may have --but criticism of the Bush/Blair theory is not a theory. It was, rather, Bush and Blair who put forward the most asinine, stupid, fallacious, and outlandish 'theory' to have ever come down the pike.

Critiques of the 'official theory' which would have you believe that a team of rag-tag Islamic radicals, who most certainly could not fly Cessnas, managed to co--ordinate an attack that resulted in the complete and utter destruction of two of the world's largest, tallest structures and a third building in New York that was not even struck by ANY aircraft at any time. Sorry, Herrmann, critics of this theory are not 'theorists'; they are realists and true skeptics. The 'official theory' is, however, a theory. It is also pure bunkum which even the co-chairs of the 911 commission now disown! They don't believe it. Why should you?

That brings up the topic of Building 7. Bush/Blair gullibles have always included Building 7 as a part of the terrorist attack. By putting itself in the position of defending the outlandish, official conspiracy theory of them all, the BBC has, perhaps unwittingly, assumed the burden of proof! If the BBC wishes to 'demolish' critics of the 'official conspiracy theory', it must then PROVE the 'official conspiracy'. BBC is sticking its neck out, perhaps pinning it own future on proving an 'official conspiracy theory' for which there is not a shred of evidence. Making minor changes to its story about surviving hijackers is a band-aid. Unless the BBC can rescue Bush/Blair, it may be finished. It is not wise for a news organization to pin its credibility, indeed, its hope for survival upon the word of two known liars: Bush and Blair.

Here's what the BBC must do to prove the Bush/Blair Official Conspiracy Theory of 911:

The BBC must explainwhy steel melted and collapsed in a relatively cool kerosene fire when, in fact, no other building in the world had ever so collapsed! In fact, the fires at WTC --including Building 7 --were NEVER hot enough at any time to have melted steel! Moreover, by the time the Twin Towers collapsed, the billowing smoke was black. Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'. The fires were spent and the steel was never hot enough even for a second to have melted steel! Again --the burden of proof is upon BBC, Bush and Blair to PROVE the most stupid and outlandish conspiracy theory ever perpetrated upon a gullible pubic!

The BBC must offer a credible explanation for the precise maneuver that is attributed to Flight 77 said to have hit the Pentagon. Bluntly --Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna. He could not have banked a 757 90 degrees without crashing it, let alone execute a maneuver that many experienced pilots say is absolutely impossible in a 757.

The BBC must PROVE, with photographs if it can get them, that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Surely, Bush, eager to assist BBCs efforts on his behalf will will turn over every one of hundreds, possibly thousands of photos that were taken of the Pentagon and whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon that fateful day! Surely, Bush will want to help the BBC out! Won't he?

The BBC must PROVE that Flight 77 Flight Data is consistent with its crashing into the Pentagon. I am confident that the Flight Data from Flight 77 will prove conclusively that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at an altitude of about 200 feet or slightly higher. Let's open up the Black Box and see who is correct! Me? Or the BBC/Bush? I'm not sweatin' it!

Now let's talk about what is perhaps the BBC's biggest gaffe --more egregious even than its various after-the-fact circumlocutions in the wake of its report that Building 7 had collapsed when, in fact, it was still standing. That is: the BBC censored only that portion of David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she stated that Omar Sheikh had murdered Bin Laden years ago. Why did the BBC censor this portion and this portion only? Did the BBC feel obliged to keep alive the myth that Osama Bin Laden --a CIA asset --was still alive? Why?

The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years. Bhutto's remarks confirmed numerous reports including those by Fox and the New York Times that bin Laden had been dead for several years. The BBC was not alone in "censoring" Bhutto's references to the death of bin Laden.

On November 2nd, 2007 two weeks after the first attempt on her life resulted in the deaths of 158 people, former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto spoke with British interviewer David Frost about her plans for Pakistan, the botched assassination and her feelings about working with current President Pervez Musharraf. (In light of her death, this is a difficult video to watch.) In the course of the past few days, however, FOX News has aired short clips from this interview on Special Report. No one - including Frost - seems to have picked up on an astounding claim made by Mrs. Bhutto, namely, that Osama bin Laden is dead. Mme. Bhutto claimed that a man named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." With video.

Fox News had a stake in keeping bin Laden alive --but it was trapped. Fox had already reported him dead! Thus Benazir Bhutto was confirmed. It was on December 26, 2001, that the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. The original Fox report is as follows:

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."

Bin Laden, therefore, could not have issued a video tape on October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. This is the famous tape that many pundits believe swung the election from John Kerry to George Bush.

On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]

Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.

Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?

NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported. Professional journalists?

The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced more recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. Why would the BBC have deleted only that portion of the interview? Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.

A fallacious rationalization has surfaced. It is said --as if scripted --that Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no reason to suppose or speculate that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto was not an idiot.

Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. Theories that Bhutto 'misspoke' are baseless, pure supposition for which there is not a shred of evidence in support.

Perhaps the BBC is trying to make amends for having told the truth about 911 and the events leading up to it when it was not yet 'treasonous' to tell the truth. The best BBC reporting was done before 911, before the axis of Bush and Blair would deceive the world and intimidate the media. All would not go smoothly; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, meanwhile, had already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company.

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.

By July, 2001, the US State Department was reported to have been threatening the Taliban with carpet bombs.

U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil

By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service

PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.

In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.

Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. [emphasis mine, EC]

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.

They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.

''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.

To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The negotiations with the Taliban broke down. In that summer of 2001, the American people were distracted by the American media noise machine. See: All Condit All The Time. The US Government was informing other governments that the US would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October. The US timetable for war was set before 911 would conveniently provide the pretext. Pure luck? I don't think so.

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. ...

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Water boarding is guaranteed to get bad intelligence. So --why is the Bush administration so adamant in its defense? There are only two credible explanations:

They are stupid and don't know any better;

They are perverts and get off on it!

My definition of torture: any procedure so painful or frightening that victims will say anything to make it stop. 'Water boarding' simulates' drowning; therefore, reliable information is impossible to obtain. A victim will say anything, most certainly whatever the torturers want to hear.

It's medieval. It's does not work. It does not obtain reliable information. It is cruel by any civilized standard.
In medieval times, the European Continent was an unlikely birthplace for an enlightenment that was not to come for another 1,000 years. Yet, already, under Bush, we have begun a descent into a new dark age.

A trial in medieval times, for example, was, like Bush's program of torture, based less upon evidence or witnesses than upon the outcome of an ordeal in which it was believed God would assert his powers. Disputes, for example, were resolved by combat. It was believed that God would favor whomever was in the right.

Suspected witches were subject to trial by water in which those found innocent were no better off than those judged guilty. Like water boarding, those who feared imminent death would tell the inquisitors whatever they wanted to hear --a confession. It was a temporary reprieve. Death by drowning was the fate of those confessing as well as those whom the Devil insisted protest their innocence.

In Bush's America, those tortured have already been 'deemed' to be 'terrorists'. What is actually said is not only unreliable, it doesn't really matter. We must conclude that the procedure itself is merely the expression of psychopathic perversions. In this situation, only delusional supporters of George W. Bush could believe that information gained under such conditions could be, in any sense, reliable. The procedure says more about the perversions of the torturer than anything said by the victim about 'terrorism'.
In the regime of Elizabeth I, torture was carried out by Richard Topcliffe, a pervert who loved his job. Topcliffe 'earned' the right to torture 'enemies' of the Elizabethan state. He had earlier served the Queen's secretary, William Cecil, later created Lord Burghley. By 1570 he was getting on the job training in service to Elizabeth's master spy, Sir Francis Walsingham and the Privy Council.
Topcliffe claimed that no one else was as effective at torture. His instruments, he said, were of his own design and better than 'official' methods. The Queen authorized Topcliffe to set up his own torture chamber in his home in London with blackened windows against the passing curious. He is said to have been personally involved in carrying out the death sentences upon convicted Catholics. His methods included hanging and drawing and quartering.

In numerous accounts, Topcliffe is described variously as "old and hoary", a "veteran in evil". His victims included the poor and infamous, prominently the Jesuit, Robert Southwell, a cousin of William Shakespeare. To bring Southwell to justice, Topcliffe raped Anne Bellamy repeatedly until she agreed to help Topcliffe apprehend Southwell.

Thanks to a wonderful BBC documentary by Michael Woods, we have this accurate 'word for word' exhange between Southwell and Richard Topcliffe. Woods calls it "...a scene of menace that could have leaped straight out of a Hannibal Lecter movie, and a moment of psychological barbarity that did certainly influence Shakespeare."

Southwell: I am decayed in memory with long and close imprisonment, and I have been tortured ten times. I had rather have endured ten executions. I speak not this for myself, but for others; that they may not be handled so inhumanely, to drive men to desperation, if it were possible.Topcliffe: If he were racked, let me die for it.Southwell: No; but it was as evil a torture, or late device.Topcliffe: I did but set him against a wall.
Southwell: Thou art a bad man.Topcliffe: I would blow you all to dust if I could.Southwell: What, all?Topcliffe: Ay, all.Southwell: What, soul and body too?

Southwell was, of course, convicted of exercising his religious convictions. The following account from Wiki is based upon surviving accounts by witnesses and is consistent with practices in the Elizabethan police state.

On the next day, February 20, 1595, Southwell was sent to Tyburn. Execution of sentence on a notorious highwayman had been appointed for the same time, but at a different place — perhaps to draw the crowds away — and yet many came to witness Southwell's death. Having been dragged through the streets on a sled, he stood in the cart beneath the gibbet and made the sign of the cross with his pinioned hands before reciting a Bible passage from Romans xiv.

The sheriff made to interrupt him; but he was allowed to address the people at some length, confessing that he was a Jesuit priest and praying for the salvation of Queen and country. As the cart was drawn away, he commended his soul to God with the words of the psalm in manus tuas.

He hung in the noose for a brief time, making the sign of the cross as best he could. As the executioner made to cut him down, in preparation for bowelling him while still alive, Lord Mountjoy and some other onlookers tugged at his legs to hasten his death. His lifeless body was then bowelled and quartered. As his severed head was displayed to the crowd, no one shouted the traditional "Traitor!"

Bellamy had become pregnant and married Topcliffe's servant to cover up what had happened. Though she was, perhaps, fortunate to have survived an encounter with Topcliffe, she suffered needlessly. Southwell never denied his faith and would have been convicted in any case. Her rape served only Topcliffe's perversity. Bellamy was one of hundreds, perhaps thousands of victims of state-sanctioned perversion.

"...this England that was want to conquer others, hath made a shameful conquest of itself..."

--Richard II, William Shakespeare

Richard II was considered by Elizabeth to have been a seditious play, a parody of her own dictatorial regime. By this time, the bloom was off the rose and the aging Elizabeth no longer represented the future of the nation. She considered the play by Shakespeare to have been seditious but allowed it because, as Augustin Phillips (of Shakespeare's company) might have said in defense of the players: it's was only show biz, your majesty!

Nevertheless, a paranoid, aging queen raged aloud in her chambers: 'no ye not that I am Richard II?"

She was also convinced that it was not William Shakespeare but Christopher Marlowe who wrote Richard II, their performances bought and paid for by Essex who was typically late for his own coup d'etat! His hastily planned coup failed, of course, and later, he would pay the ultimate price for high treason.

Having much earlier saved Marlowe's academic career and the degree which Cambridge officials might have denied him, the Queen might well have been in a position to know whether or not Marlowe survived a fateful night in Deptford where legend says he died just two weeks before a play play bearing the name 'William Shakespeare' was registered. As we have learned in numerous James Bond films: 'You Only Live Twice'.

If you happen to be among the top one percent of the nation, then, Bush has done a fabulous job for you. He's has enriched you and your type. You benefited from 911 which made possible Bush's agenda of aggressive war, dismantling the Constitution, and packing the courts. You should be proud and probably are.

Bush is just a figurehead. In the words of an excellent documentary that tries to explain the inexplicable: the fix was in! Bush is 'president' because he is a Bush and because he represents you --but only if you happen to be among the top 1 percent of the population. If not, you are outta luck! Bush has done his job on his bosses behalf. Everyone else is outta luck. It's a comprehensive and deliberate program:

wage resource wars in the middle east --Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran specifically;

dismantle the Constitution and the electoral apparatus through subversion and institutionalized vote theft;

establish a precedent by which the 'executive' may rewrite the laws passed by Congress;

pack the courts such that the rights of individuals and lower classes are disenfranchised, ignored, and, in other ways, violated with disingenuous decisions which often, of late, simply ignore several hundred years of Anglo/American jurisprudence, the precedents established by our own US Supreme Court, and the very letter of the law itself.

In Bush's words: "The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper!" If you happen to be among the top one percent of the nation, then, Bush has, indeed, done a fabulous job on your behalf. If the revolution is to be effective, it must begin with a restoration of the 'rule of law' which Bush has subverted with signing statements, decrees, and executive orders.

Greg Palast is, once again, on the trial of a 'President' who has come out of the closet, i.e, Bush openly flouts the very source of US sovereignty: the people themselves. In a phrase: Bush doesn't give a shit about that or about you.